LWT Tourney semi - Whitaker v B. Leonard

whitaker via wide ud.

 

My heart-and head-say Benny Leonard.There is one film of him on youtube the last time I looked;Lew Tendler I.Tendler was lefthanded-and like Leonard and Whitaker-is in the Hall of Fame.Their first fight in 1922 was supposed to be one of Leonard's toughest;I'm not sure,but it set up their rematch which soldout Yankee Stadium in 1923.Leonard,accordingf to what I've read,won easily.Leonard had over 200 fights.I love Pernell Whitaker;my ultimate dream fight is Leonard against Duran.Regardless of who wins,I still say the Leonard of the first Tendler fight in 1922 is the earliest example of any fighter I associate with advanced modern technique/skill.

 

I'm torn on this one. My head says Whitaker could take anything Leonard could throw at him, but I really don't know ANYTHING about Leonard.

I'll make my decision based on the old-timer/new-school factor. Whitaker was slick as hell, but most old-timer lightweights from the 20s/30s were slick, too. I would favor Whitaker over ANY "conventional" lightweight from the older era, but I think we HIGHLY underestimate the slickness and ability of the unorthodox fighters from past eras...and Leonard was something of a slickster, no?

Whitaker would humiliate any orthodox fighter from the 1920/1930s (just as he did in the 1990s), but I don't think he could handle a slickster from that era, fighters fought in a much different manner back then.

Leonard via SD. Whitaker spends most of the fight trying to figure out this unorthodox, unconventional fighter, and suffers because of it.

 

I did watch the video. Whitaker could outslick MODERN fighters, but I see a fight with Leonard going differently.

Older fighters may use inferior tactics/techniques, but to beat Whitaker you need to get creative.

 

The "guy" in the first video was Benny Leonard, who bridged the gap between the pioneers and the modern boxer. He was extraordinary partly because he had no precedent. He also had experience that would shame Pernell. He fought in a tougher time against tougher men. Those are not opinions, those are facts.

That being said, the film is old, jumpy, silent, grainy, and from one far-off angle. It's tough to even distinguish between Benny and Lew. Pernell's video, by contrast, is in blazing color, from about 3 angles including close-ups, is full of snapshots designed to glorify him at his best, and then there's music in it to get your heart pounding.

You seem to want to show these two films -one poor quality and one modern quality- to the media-crazed youth of the world and ask them which is better based on the film quality alone...

...that's a bit like asking which movie is better Nosferatu (also 1922) or Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Kids with ADD will choose the latter, the mature and the knowledgable, the former.

 

pea, take it easy haha anytime whitaker comes up u get so damn hostel......i would vote for pea via decision

 

Not necessarily. The preceding sentence is the point.

If Pernell was taped using cameras from 70 years earlier, he would not look so dazzling. Nor would Tyson look so devastating. Nor would Chavez's little pivots inside be spotted.

 

maybe not, but if leonard was taped using cameras from peas time, i dont think he would look as dazzling as pea did anyway.

 

No.

Jimmy Wilde isn't Benny Leonard. The Wilde footage is from 6 years earlier than Leonard-Tendler and I stated plainly that it is Benny that bridges the gap. Benny Leonard and the word "inferior" should never be in the same sentence, and you should be corrected for such an assertion. Don't go in any gyms around here talking that ragtime --You'll get a stogie stuck in your eyeball by a grizzled old cutman.

Anyone who has been here for a while knows that I am not of the Janitor/Cross-Trainer mindset when it comes to late 19th century/early 20th century fighters. I simply do not accept that the skill of Choynski was comparable with the skill of Louis, or that Charlie Mitchell's boxing prowess was comparable to Mike McCallum's. There are a few exceptions that I accept. Gans, for instance. But overall, the dearth of film prevents objective analysis and newspaper accounts were simply not reliable. Additionally, skill evolves over time and with experience... it is no wonder to me that technique became more streamlined over a greater demographic of boxers in the 1930s -the watershed period in my book.

But Leonard was the man standing and pointing this a'way. And your critique of his hand placement falls flat. He extended his left as a matador does a red cape... Lew could bang like hell and it is not unwise to do what he did. Do you offer the same criticisms to Lewis and Ali? To Hearns? On the other hand, you fail to acknowledge Benny's fluid mobility and the angles he stepped to on every Tendler rush. You fail to see the crisp shots launched with perfect timing.

You are blind to the mastery that is in front of you.

 

Perhaps not, but he would sure as hell look more devestating. He was a boxer-puncher extraordinaire -until Robinson, he was the standard of boxer-punchers.

 

Whitaker UD

 

I appreciate your reconsidering. I am not 100% that any LW who ever lived can beat Whitaker. There are only 2 or 3 that I would favor over him and that is it --and none more than a 60% edge. Whitaker was extremely complex.

Leonard's footage is such that you really have to strain to see what he is doing. Watch it again sometime, but be fair, put on Cavalleria Rusticana from Raging Bull playing with it. Ignore the stance which I will give you hearkens backwards... watch instead the strategy, the efficient mobility, the side steps, the angles, the defense, and although we cannot hope to get a taste of his offensive capability, look at the shots he places. Keep in mind that Lew had at fighttime, a record of 93-5.

 

Bedtime for me. Good night....